This is
an Assignment on King Asoka written by Mary Walsh who
is my friend. I found this information about King Asoka is interesting So
I decided to put it in to my web site.

Clearly, this assignment
on King Asoka has been extremely interesting and challenging based on the
complexity of the readings. This paper will provide a brief historical account
of the Mauryen Empire taken from various sources. Main sources of information
come from the Arthasastra, the inscriptions of Asoka along with other literary
studies of eastern and western perspective. Topics for discussion fall under
the following headings: conflicts and contradictions; religious theories;
Asoka’s personal religion and political authority. There are several questions
to consider when researching Asoka’s Inscriptions; for instance, did they
represent something new, or did they reinforce an existing order? While
researching this topic on Asoka, arguments were constantly being raised
regarding Buddhism. Considering the numerous legends and myths associated
with Asoka’s involvement with Buddhism, this paper will explore whether or not
Asoka’s political decisions were influenced by Buddhist doctrines. It will also
discuss Asoka’s political authority regarding the central administration of the
Mauryan Empire; keeping in mind that he inherited an empire with pre-established
laws and institutions as recorded in the Kautaliya Arthasastra.

SOURCES OF
INFORMATION

“HISTORIANS of Ancient India
generally classify the original authorities for the early history of India into
four definite divisions: (1) tradition mainly based on literary records, (2)
contemporary literature, (3) notes and accounts of foreigners who visited India,
and (4 archaeological evidence
[1]The main sources of information are the Kautaliya Arthasastra, the
inscriptions of Asoka and the fragments of Megasthenes. Literary studies
such as the Bhagavata Purana deals with post-Gupta dynasties and are
invaluable sources concerning the history of pre-Mauryan India. For example“,
the Purina’s mentioned above report that a Brahman, named Kautalya
assisted Candragupta, the first Mauryan King (Asoka’s grandfather) in defeating
the reigning king of the Nanda dynasty; and is considered a very reliable
source. “Thanks to the energy and enthusiasm

as well as the transparent earnestness of scholars in the
field of Asokan script, we have to-day the history of Asokan studies.
[2]

CONFLICTS AND
CONTRADICTIONS

Conflicts and contradictions were constantly being raised regarding Asoka’s
inscriptions. According to Dikshitar, travelers visiting India endeavoring to
get true interpretations of the Asokan inscriptions often were unsuccessful.
Take for example, when two Chinese travelers, Fa-Hien and Yuan Chwang, visited
India (in the 4th and 7th centuries) with the greatest of
intentions to leave behind invaluable legacy of their writings (which has been
considered by some people to have enriched our knowledge of Indian History) were
later deemed to be unreliable sources of information. The following account
best explains the contributing factors to these unsuccesses. First, as so
noted, travelers could not find experts to correctly interpret the script
contained on the rocks and pillars. And second, the knowledge of the script had
decayed so badly that the inscriptions became sealed to ordinary Indians of the
4th century A.D. According to recent writers, “these travelers, have
recorded wrong readings of those inscriptions, the results of mere guess work or
hearsay information of local people not confessing to their own ignorance of the
scripts.”
[3]
Consequently, “ A comparative study of the different terms and even of contents
of both Asoka’s inscriptions and the Arthasastra has been attempted by
many a scholar, sometimes leading to a thorough revision and a radical change in
the original interpretation.”
[4]
To conclude, the overall picture as a whole indicates that the Edicts enable us
to construct a true history of the great Mauryan Emperor Asoka.

HISTORICAL
INTRODUCTION

“The Mauryan Empire grew
in extend under Candragupta and got further expanded under Bindusara and Asoka.
Candragupta succeeded to the throne immediately after Alexander’s invasion and
the latter incident involved him in international relations. After having
consolidated his Empire Candragupta turned his attention to the countries, which
were under the Macedonian rule. As reported, Selecus Nikator who was in charge
of the Gren kingdoms in the Indian frontier relinquished his rights to that
portion of the country belonging to the Indian Empire, the satrapies of the
Paropanisadai, Aria, Arachosia and Gedrosia, and he was presented in return with
500 elephants. Selecus felt the strength of the arms of Candragupta and
arranged for peace through negotion. This peace was affected with success by
Megasthenes, the Gren ambassador of Selecus in 303 B.C.”
[5]
More specifically, the Empire of Candragupta extended from Afghanistan
to Mysore, however, in Asoka’s reign the territories included all the Dekhan and
South India up to the frontiers of the Tamil kingdoms. “The vastness of the
Empire under Asoka can be easily gauged from the distribution of the Pillars,
Edicts and the Topes which are usually associated with his name. A significant
fact is that Asoka has invariably caused the Minor Rock Edicts to be located on
the borders of the Empire.”[6]

According
to the Puranas, the Nandas reigned the earth for approximately 100 years and
were then succeeded by the Mauryas. As reported in the Mauryan Polity a
categorized list has provided the names of the kings and their reigning periods
respectively ruling for 232 years. See below.

Throughout my research on Asoka,
much controversy was examined and argued as to whether or not Asoka was a
Buddhist. For example, one such argument by Pargiter would suggest that the
Mauryas won great fame in Buddhism but at the same time were disgraced by some
Brahmanical eyes. Another investigation into this subject would conclude that
Asoka by conviction became a Buddhist; whereas Dikshitar would argue against
Pargiter by the following account. “Granting for our present purpose that Asoka
was a Buddhist by conviction can we conclude on this account that all the
Mauryan monarchs favored Buddhism? Surely Asoka cannot be taken to represent
all the Mauryan dynasty. There are other monarchs equally great and equally
tolerant and generally accepted to be non-Buddhists. Thus the argument of
Pargiter is a mere assumption and lacks the support of tangible evidence. It is
again unconvincing. A remarkable circumstance in this connection is that the
successors of the Mauryan dynasty, namely, the Sungas and Kanvas or Kanvayanas
are generally believed to be Brahmanical in their outlook and policy.”[8]

Dikshitar reports that before
the discovery of all the inscriptions, researchers had simply to depend on the
legendary accounts of the Pali texts and Buddhist literature, that claim
the Emperor to be a Buddhist. In Dikshitar’s opinion, “the inscriptions have
thrown welcome light especially with regard to his relations with his kith and
kin though the legends make him out to be a blood-thirsty tyrant who killed his
near and dear for the sake of the Magadhan throne. This is only one instance
among the many which go to show that fundamental differences exist between the
accredited authority of the inscriptions and the Buddhist legends.[9]

Dikshitar argues, the
inscriptions prove that Asoka’s Dharma was not merely Buddhist as he is
often made out to be, but was also non-sectarian in character. According to
Dikshitar, Asoka tried to bring satisfaction to all sects-orthodox as well as
heterodox of the Empire. Accordingly, “Asoka felt it the duty of the State to
afford protection and peace to every faith or creed so long as that creed or
faith did not interfere with the neighboring faith, and so long as there was no
misunderstanding among them. Asoka promulgated a policy which helped the
different religious sects to move on friendly terms, with no spirit of rivalry
or rancour.”
[10]

INSCRIPTIONS

The inscriptions of Asoka are
important from political, economic and religious points of view. These three
categories go hand in hand according to some historians. For example, “It is
the narrow view of the writer in the Encyclopaedia Britanica (11th
edition) who remarks (See Note: 2). The inscriptions, which contain altogether
about 5000 words, are entirely of religious import, and their references to
worldly affairs are incidental (See Note: 3).[11]
Perhaps the same view is held by another authority, E. Hultzsch, who says: “His
Edicts are not concerned with public affairs, but are of an almost purely
religious character.” (See Note:4)[12]According to
Dikshitar, “This is due to the lack of correct understanding of the ancient
Hindu ideal of politics and religion. To the ancient Hindus politics and
religion were intertwined, and neither could exist by itself. In fact secular
affairs, as we understand them to day, were largely governed by religious and
ethical ideas and ideals. (See Note: 5)
[13]

As previously
mentioned questions regarding Asoka’s political and religious interests were
raised. To pursue this further we will look at two points of view regarding
Asoka’s stand on the slaughter of animals. The first account is directed towards
the fact that the Emperor was more concerned with the material welfare of the
state; “Asoka’s interest in live-stock, in its improvements and efficiency, in
agriculture and in the census for taxation and other purposes bears testimony to
the fact that the Emperor was much concern with the material welfare of the
State.”
[14]

The second account
is directed towards the sacredness of life so quoted in the Fourteen Rock
Edicts, Edict 1. “THE SACREDNESS OF LIFE – This pious edict has been written
command of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King. Here [in the capital] no
animal may be slaughtered for sacrifice, nor may the holiday-feast be held,
because His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King sees much offence in the
holiday-feast, although in certain places holiday – feasts are excellent in the
sight of His Sacred and Gracious Majesty the King.” (Rock Edict l. See Note: 6).

To conclude, it was
reported that Asoka was not preaching Buddhism but pursuing the dharma
established in the state here references were made to the chapter entitled
sunadhyaksa with the relevant text in the First Rock Edict, and the second
Pillar Edict, where Asoka enforced the laws of the Arthasastra even with
regard to the animal kingdom. Clearly, Anoka was not against healthy sports
where there was no slaughter of the animal. As reported by Dikshitar regarding
Asoka’s actions against the slaughter of animals, “What he did was to abolish
cruel and unhealthy sports; but he provided edifying shows. On this topic it
may be proved that Asoka did not go far from the prescription of the
Arthasastra so far as the killing of animals was concerned. Kautalya
prohibited their killing for 15 days during caturmasya and four days of the full
moon. (These are accepted Hindu fast-days) In the same way Asoka [See Fifth
Pillar Edict] did not discontinue their killing for his kitchen, forbade their
killing on fast days (anuposatham). A remarkable circumstance in this
connection is the common use of the term caturmasya both in the
Arthasastra and the inscriptions. This coincidence demonstrates beyond
doubt that Asoka was not preaching Buddhism but was pursuing the dharma
established in the state.”
[15]

ASOKA’S
PERSONAL RELIGION

One of the problems
that come up when discussing Asoka’s faith in Buddhist doctrines, is that
according to some historians there were no religious systems such as Jainism and
Buddhism at that time. As noted by Dikshitar, “one cannot deny that there were
monastic sects embracing the ideas and ideals inculcated by the founders,
Mahavira and Gautama. These monastic sects had not yet spread to such an extent
as to assume the dimensions of what one may ordinarily understand by the term
religion.”[16]

“The history of
Buddhism in the Mauryan epoch was still the story of the monastic sect looking
for royal patronage and affording no locus stand to a lay man. If at this time
Buddhism did not attain the status of a religion in the technical sense of the
term, (See Note: 7) it then naturally follows that Asoka’s conversion to that
faith becomes a fiction. For the examination of Asoka’s religion, much depends
on the evidential conclusion of the larger question whether there is
justification for the assumption that Buddhism had been recognized as a
religion, different from the established religion of the land. And yet we have
strange, but as we shall point out, incredible stories about Candragupta
becoming a Jaina, and Asoka turning not to Jainism, and now to Buddhism.”[17]

Rev. Fr. Heras, S.J.,
theory on Asoka being a Buddhist follows. “That Asoka was a Buddhist is
primarily supported by the Buddhist books which were reduced to writing
centuries after the Buddha’s nirvana. Writers who have thrown their weight in
this behalf claim that the theory is partially supported by the inscriptions of
Asoka. There is a school of savants who deem that Asoka was originally a Jaina
by faith and afterwards attracted by the Buddhist ideals and doctrines. There
is also another view that Asoka was neither a Buddhist nor a Jaina, but one who
professed the Brahmanical faith.”
[18]

As previously
mentioned there are numerous assumptions and theories in reference to the great
Asoka and his professed Buddhist faith. According to Ananda Coomaraswamy,
Candragupta Maurya’s grandson Asoka (272-232) B.C., whose early faith may have
been Brahmanical, Jaina, or possibly Magian, early in life became an ardent
Buddhist. Asoka first made Buddhism a kind of state religion, and sent
Buddhist missionaries to other parts of India and to Ceylon, and westward as far
as Syria and Egypt. His monolithic pillar and rock edicts inculcating the
practice of the Dhamma, or (Buddhist) Law of Piety are well known; he is
credited with the erection of 80,000 stsupa, and countless monasteries;
excavations have shown that his famous palace at Pataliputra formed a large and
magnificient group of building.”
[19]
One other comment, according to Prof. David Waterhouse of the University
of Toronto, “It is hard to separate the real Asoka from the legends about him
that grew up in Buddhist circles. This is often the case with persons who are
idealized after their death…but it is fair to give the man some credit. Also the
story about his sending missions to Ceylon
probably has some basis in fact, even if they would have been as much diplomatic
as religious.” (See Note:8).

ASOKA’S
POLITICAL AUTHORITY

Asoka in his
political role answering to the central administration of his kingdoms is
concerned with the material and moral welfare depended on the political
machinery of the land. “Thus, the inscriptions of Asoka have a many-sided
interest. They are in every way concerned with public affairs, the latter
consisting mainly of the propagation and preservation of dharma in the
wide sense of the term.” according to Dikshitar.[20]The following
information provides an account of the power of the kings. “The Mauryan king
was again a constitutional monarch, law-abiding in the sense that he obeyed the
law of the land.[21]
“There is the great conception of the ancient Hindus that the king could not be,
and was not, a law-maker. The law is eternal (sanatana) and is contained
in the law-codes or the Dharmasastras of the different smrti-kartas,
which were based on the sruti. The king of the land was to act according
to the laws prescribed by these law-givers and he could not override them. To
override the laws already established was considered sacrilege. If he
did act contrary to the principles of the established law, people disowned him,
rose in rebellion against him, removed him from the throne and set up another in
his stead. Therefore, the law of the law-books was the real sovereign of the
land. The king’s orders amounted to proclamations explaining existing laws or
reviving those which had fallen into disuse. He could not, and did not, make
any legislation for the state.”
[22](see
Note: 5)

When deciding
whether the inscriptions represented something new, or mainly reinforced an
existing order of law you would have to consider how Asoka applied the law. In
other words, how close did Asoka stay within the boundaries of established
laws? For example, abolishing capital punishment. “There is an exaggerated
statement in the Asokavadana where Asoka is said to have totally abolished
capital punishment on account of his repentance for having caused death to a
monk who was his own unfortunate brother. (See Divyavadana, asokavadans section;
Dikshitar, pg. 168). Dikshitar uses the inscriptions themselves to prove this
statement has no basis. He further points out that the death sentence is
recognized for severe and extreme forms of criminal offences. Asoka, did not
have the power to abolish the death penalty, rather he found ways in which an
alternative punishment (other than death could be administered). For example,
“Asoka was prepared to mitigate the severity of punishment provided somebody
interested in the culprit would get the sentence revoked by satisfying the
judicial officers concerned as to their innocence. This reminds us of the
Kautalya’s advocacy of the release of prisoners on payment of proper
compensation price.”[23]Thus, Asoka’s influence as King along with his religious beliefs against
the killing of human life was able to manipulate the system and make the laws
work in his way. Based on these facts it would be appropriate to conclude with
this last observation. As noted in the Mauryan Polity under the Administration
of Justice, specifically Heads of Law that “…the ancient Indian King was no
law-maker. His function was to administer the law already established. This
was one of the powerful weapons by which the people were able to check and curb
the arbitrary powers of the king.”[24]

In conclusion, this topic on the
Inscriptions of Asoka was extremely interesting and challenging. Considering
the myths that developed in Buddhist circles about King Asoka it really was
difficult separating the real Asoka from these legends. Questions were raised
concerning Asoka’s personal religion as to whether or not his political
decisions were influenced by Buddhist doctrines. Recalling points previously
mentioned, one of the problems that come up when discussing Asoka’s faith, which
is said to embrace Buddhist doctrines (according to several historians) is the
notion that no religious systems such as Jainism and Buddhism existed at
that time. Dikshitar, backed up this theory by conveying the following message;
“one cannot deny that there were monastic sects embracing the ideas and ideals
inculcated by the founders, Mahavira and Gautama. These monastic sects had not
yet spread to such an extend as to assume the dimensions of what one may
ordinarily understand by the term religion.”[25]
Conversely, Coomaraswamy, whose opposing theory claimed that Asoka became an
ardent Buddhist and was responsible for making Buddhism a kind of state religion
and sent Buddhist missionaries to other parts of Indian and to Ceylon etc.
etc? In my opinion, both sides presented strong oppositional arguments and it
is due to these opposing points of view that make the task of determining
Asoka’s true faith an absolute impossibility.

Concerning Asoka’s political
authority, as stated previously it was the general perception that “The Mauryan
King was again a constitutional monarch, law-abiding in the sense that he obeyed
the law of the land.”
[26]
The great conception of the ancient Hindus was the King could not be and was not
a law-maker. As reported previously, the king of the land was to act according
to the laws prescribed by these law-givers and he could not override them. To
override the laws already established was considered sacrilege. The kings
authority amounted to proclamations explaining existing laws or reviving those
which had fallen into disuse. All things being considered it is important to
remember Asoka’s inscriptions were deemed important from a political, economic
and religious point of view. It was suggested they were entirely of religious
import and their references to worldly affairs incidental, according to
Dikshitar. Yet another interpretation would say that religion and politics were
intertwined, and neither could exist by itself. Finally, there is no denying
theses inscriptions can be and were interpreted in many ways and when deciding
whether they represented something new, or mainly reinforced an existing order
of law one would have to consider how Asoka applied the law. It is my opinion
that they did not represent something new; rather they enforced an existing
order.

THIS SECTION ONWARD – TO BE
OMMITTED

Edicts

Dikshitar’s research presents
several points of view regarding Asoka’s Edicts. For example, “It is sometimes
claimed with no justification whatever that Asoka’s Edicts were laws promulgated
by the Emperor in utter disregard of this sacret tradition.”(see
Note:6) {See Smith, Asoka, p. 92} By this he
means it is an erroneous position taken by the historian. “Asoka has nowhere
claimed that he made any departure in the legislation of the land. He simply
enforced the regulations which had fallen into disuse by long and continued
neglect. If Asoka did anything he revived old practices and put them in working
order. The idea that the Hindu king was a law-maker is not countenanced in
Indian jurisprudence at all. To regard therefore the sasana contained in the
Edicts of Asoka as amounting to legislation by the king is, to say the least,
uncritical. [He goes on to explain further] What Asoka did was the
re-affirmation of old laws which had gone out of practice. [Throughout his
account of Asoka being no legislator, Dikshitar relies on references by V.A.
Smith which follow]. He concludes, “Therefore the term sasana (rendered
‘ordinance’ by V.A. Smith} occurring in the Sarnath Pillar Edict (see Corpus,
pp.161-3) and continued in the Pillar Edicts of Sanchi and Kausambi (Allahabad),
does not mean promulgation of a new law, but does mean a declaration of the old
law without prejudice to the customary law or the samaya of the Arthasastra and
Dharmasastras.(fn Dikshitar, pg 92). Dikshitar summarizes “In light of the
peculiar judicial concept of law as eternal, and samaya an important factor of
the law, it is misreading the history o fancient India if we style any monarch
as a law-maker. In the nature of things and in the circumstances in which he
accepts the crown the king is bound to be a non-autocratic and non-absolute. In
face ther is no place for an autocrat in the polity of ancient Hindus. (fn
Dikshitar, pg. 94) It is necessary to mention that differences of opinion appear
on page 98 of Dikshitar, questioning the serious belief that the Mauryan
monarchs were absolute or autocratic. Testimony to this assumption also appears
on page 97 under the evidence of Arrian. It speaks in addition to the Buddhist
tradition contained in the Divyavadana , testimony of the Greek writer Arrian.
The point of view is in relation to the executive powers exercised by the
Mauryan Council.

The
experts reveal through a system of checks and balances. There were various
levels of government keeping things honest so to speak. The central
administration for example the Chambers of the Council and of the Assembly
where the representatives of groups and communities would meet and discuss the
affairs of state. One such system is shown here, “One was the the
mantriparisad of which the important official was the Purohita who was the
king’s conscience-keeper, or in plain language, confidential adviser to the
crown in matters spiritual and secular. In addition to other duties, these
ministers with the Purohita were to guide the king in the right path lest he
should fall into pitfalls due to carelessness. (Ar.Sas.,Bk.l,Ch.Vii.) (fn
Dikshitar,pg94)

It is believed the Mauryan
kingdom endured for a long time because the people willingly complied in the
administration of the land. The kinds ruled justly and in constitutional
manners. It should be remembered the Empire depended on the dominant
personality of the Emperor. According to Dikshitar, “…the Empire arose under
strong rulers and broke under weak ones” (Seeikshitar, above, pg. 74) “There
was, then, an institution, a Council or Assembly, the parisad of Asoka
inscriptions which proved an effective check on the monarch by restraining him
from going astray from the ordained path.” (See Note 6 or 7: check previous
notes in terms of the numbers – refer to pag 95 fn 3. Two Indian scholars
etc…..) pg 95. dik

PAGE 98;
DIDSHITAR, REPORTS ON A CONTRASTING P-O-V

Most discussion on
Asoka reflect a kind, intelligent and compassionate human being. The
Arthasastra pleads for a healthy gorm of government which also reflected Asoka’s
concept of how his kingdom should be run.

As reported by
Dikshitar, “Asoka’s aim was to win the affection of his people. Just as a
father would do his best to his children, so that they may enjoy life thoroughly
and well by pursuing a righteous path leading them ultimately to the heaven of
bliss, so Asoka wished to do to his people. He wanted to see that every one of
his subjects was happy and contented. In a word, Asoka liked to follow the
Rajadharma in such a manner that it would tend to the yokaksema of the state
comprised of different communities of people. Welfare and happiness (hitasukham)
correspond to the happy phrase of the Kautaliya yokaksema. It was then the
ambition of Asoka to discharge his duty, namely protection of his subjects, in a
way calculated to promote their best interests.” (fn Dikshitar, pg. 99).

Dikshitar, referes
to the standing of Dr. D.R. Bhandarkar, who he feels erred in examining the
real force that underlies the paternal conception of administration. A stand
which contradicts Asoka’s methodology.

“A signigicant circumstance in
this conncection is the paternal conception of the government so eloquently
proclaimed by the inscriptions left to us as an invaluable legacy by Asoka.
Even to this concept Asoka was indebted to the Arthasastra. This is evident
from the fact that the Arthasastra pleads for such a healthy gorm of
government. It is unfortunate that an indologist of the standing of Dr. D.R.
Bhandarkar has fallen into an error in examining the real force that underlies
the paternal conception of administration. He remarks: (Asoka, p.63) “Just as
children are solely dependent upon their parents who can do to them just what
they like, the subjects were at the mercy of the king who was thus no better
than a despot.” (fn Dik,pg98)

Dikshitar’s interpretation of
Dr. Bhandarkar’s remarks amount to the fact that every father is a despot. He
elaborates further to convey if the feelings of a father towards his children
were to be despotic it would be impossible to cultivate homely virtues of peace
and goodwill which reflect the fruits of India’s culture and thos of other
cultures. According to Dikshitar, “Nay, the notion o f a father being despotic
lays an axe at the root of all human relationships, and is contrary to all
religious creeds. (mary, here try to link this passage
to a Buddhist doctrine or do it at the end of the quote) When we speak of parental feelings we mean undoubtedly
genuine affection, transparent sincerity, and religious devotion to duty which
consists in the bringing up of the children until they come of age and stand on
their own legs. This and this alone is meant by Kautalya in his Arthasastra and
Asoka in his inscriptions. (See Note 7or8) refer to page 99 foot note l.
according to Kaut then on to This was the paternal conception of the ancient
Indian monarchy………..pg 99.

RELIGION

The
true concept of Dharma has been raised by a number of distinguished scholars
over time, but according to some historians it still is a problem requiring
definite answers. As recorded by Dikshitar, “…a tentative definition dharma may
be taken to mean the totality of duties expected of every individual to his
family, community, country and God.” (fn Dik,pg. 241)

When
discussing the dharma of Buddhism according to the late Professor Rhys Davids,
“Dharma is not simply law but that which underlies and includes the law, a word
often most difficult to translate and best rendered by truth or righteousness.”
And “The concept of dharma can generally be viewed from two standpoints, namely,
the standpoint of ethics and that of the doctrine.” (fn, Dikshitar, pg. 45,
and 243).

ADDITIONAL SOURCE

ONE SUCH INTREPRETATION ON ASOKA

Ashoka (also sometimes transliterated
as "Asoka"), the grandson of Chandragupta – the founder of the Mauryan dynasty –
and the son of Bindusara, came to the throne circa 268 B.C. and died
approximately 233 B.C. He is chiefly known from his series of rock and pillar
inscriptions, which are found scattered in various parts of India and provide
important information about his reign and policies. After eight years of rule,
he waged a fierce war against the kingdom of Kalinga (Orissa
of today) and was so horrified at the carnage he had caused that he gave up
violence and turned to Buddhism.

In his efforts to propagate Buddhism, Ashoka built shrines and monasteries
and inscribed Buddhist teachings on rocks and pillars in many places. He sent
missionaries to countries as remote as Greece and Egypt; his own son, a monk,
carried Buddhism to Sri Lanka, where it is still the major religion. Despite
Ashoka's vigorous exertions of faith, he was tolerant of other religions. The
empire enjoyed remarkable prosperity during his reign.

Some Indian historians think that his policy of peace led to the downfall of
the Mauryan empire, which fell apart after his death. He was soon largely
forgotten by Indian tradition and only remembered in Buddhist circles as a great
patron of the faith. With the deciphering of his inscriptions during the 19th
century, he took his rightful place in world history as one of the most
benevolent rulers of antiquity.